here - 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages

Recommendations

Info

Subject marking in Bembe (David Iorio; Newcastle University; d.e.iorio@ncl.ac.uk) The phenomenon of subject marking in Bantu has so far defied a unified analysis, and is treated, depending on the language in question, as either pronominal agreement [2], grammatical agreement [4], or as being ambiguous between the two [1]. On the basis of the local complementary distribution between subject markers and lexical subjects, and the fact that preverbal subjects exclusively display A’-properties, I claim that subject marking in Bembe (D54) is pronominal. Consider (1) in which subject marking is grammatical with preverbal subjects in declaratives (a) and in object relatives without lexical subjects (b) but ungrammatical whenever a lexical subject is present in object relatives (c). (1) a. (Baana ) b-á-yak-a ngyoa. 2child 2SM-T-kill-FV 9snake ‘The/(*some) children killed a snake.’ b. Ngyoa ya-b-á-yak-á (*baana) 9snake 9REL-2SM-T-kill-FV 2child ‘The snake which they killed…’ c. Ngyoa ya-(*b)-a-yak-á baana 9snake 9REL-2SM-T-kill-FV 2child ‘The snake which the children killed… Expanding on previous proposals by [5] and [7], I claim that the facts in (1) are explained if subject markers are analysed as deficient pronominal clitics, i.e. arguments of the verb, which are generated as XP/X° in vP. The interpretable φ-features of φPs are attracted by strong φ-features on C and T under Agree and an additional TOP/REL-feature on C [4]. Due to their defective nature, φPs are able to incorporate directly into T, t<strong>here</strong>by precluding the need for spec,TP [7]. Since they are nonreferential, they receive a referential value by a lexical (or null) Aboutness-shift topic [3] in the CPdomain. Consider the derivations in (2). (2) a. [CP (baana) [TP [T b + á [AspP yak + a [vP φP [v yak [VP yak [DP ngyoa ]]]]]]]]. b. [CP ngyoa [C ya [TP [T b + á [AspP yak + á [vP φP [v yak [VP yak [DP ngyoa … c. [CP ngyoa [C ya [TP [T á [AspP yak +á [vP baana [v yak [VP yak [DP ngyoa … If subject markers are pronominal arguments, the local complementary distribution between subject markers and lexical subjects follows naturally. In addition, the absence of a spec,TP position, indicated by the A’-properties of preverbal subjects, correctly predicts that lexical subjects have to stay low in object relative clauses since they cannot incorporate. That other Bantu languages, in turn, allow preverbal lexical subjects in object relative clauses is explained by assuming that they feature an active spec,TP position, the presence of which is subject to parametric variation. [1] Bresnan, J. & S. Mchombo 1987. Topic, Pronoun and Agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63: 741–782. [2] Creissels, D. 2005. A Typology of Subject Marker and Object Marker Systems in African Languages. In: Voeltz, F.K.E. (ed.). Studies in African Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 42–70. [3] Frascarelli, M. 2007. Subjects, Topics, and the Interpretation of Referential Pro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. [4] Henderson, B. 2011. Agreement, Locality, and OVS in Bantu. Lingua 121: 742–753. [5] Holmberg, A. 2010. Null Subject Parameters. In: Biberauer T. et al. (eds.). Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: CUP. 88–124. [6] Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [7] Roberts, I. 2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. GS
The Causative-Instrumental Syncretism in Kinyarwanda Kyle Jerro, University of Texas at Austin jerrokyle@gmail.com Kinyarwanda (Rwanda) has a variety of means for encoding causation, including the morphological causative –ish in (1). Kimenyi (1980) notes that this causative is identical to the instrumental applicative, shown in (2). 1 (1) Umu-gabo a-ra-ndik-ish-a umu-kobwa i-baruwa. cl1-man cl1-pres-write-caus-imp cl1-girl cl9-letter ‘The man is making the girl write a letter.’ (2) Umu-kobwa a-ra-ndik-ish-a i-baruwa i-karamu. cl1-girl cl1-pres-write-inst-imp cl9-letter cl6-pen ‘The girl is writing a letter with a pen.’ I will argue that this syncretism of causative and instrumental morphology follows from the shared semantic nature of causees and instruments, and I will treat both constructions as three-argument event schema in which t<strong>here</strong> is an intermediate argument upon which the causer/agent acts. The crucial distinction of interpretation, building on a proposal in Peterson (2007), is the animacy of the intermediate argument. This contrasts with Shibatani and Pardeshi’s (2001) explanation for the syncretism, which states that a syncretism between a causative and applicative should arise due to the causative’s sociative meaning—i.e. the high level of involvement of the agent in the caused action. I show that although sociative meaning can be encoded in the morphological causative, this is subsumed by a broader set of meanings that require direct causation, fitting with the typology of causative meanings proposed by Comrie (1985). This direct causative meaning follows from the fact that the –ish causative syntactically patterns as what is termed a “lexical” causative. I show this based on (1) the –ish causative’s inability to undergo operations that separate the causing and caused events (2) its lack of productivity with idiomatic verbal constructions—such as yasinze ikoti ‘hang the coat’ or ‘die’, and (3) the fact that the –ish causative can block other lexical causatives in the language. I present original field data for these different syntactic tests. This treatment of morphological causatives is problematic for theories of argument structure in the Minimalist Program (cf. Harley 1996;2008), because the theory does not provide a means for encoding morphological causatives as distinct from analytic causatives. I explicate the problems within this approach and provide a proposal in Lexical-Functional Grammar in which the morphological causative is treated as a morpholexical operation on the verb. In sum, I show that morphological causatives pattern with lexical causatives, which loosely fits into the typology of causative meanings proposed by Comrie (1985). This is problematic for Shibatani and Pardeshi’s (2001) account of the phenomena, which is centered on sociative causation. I propose instead that the causative and instrumental applicative are not separate syntactic operations, but one tri-valent argument frame. I then show that the argument structure facts of this kind of structure are problematic for the Minimalist Program’s treatment of morphological causatives, and present an alternative in LFG. References: Comrie, Bernard. 1985. “Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology.” In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harley, H. 1996. "Sase bizarre: the Japanese causative and structural case," In P. Koskinen, (ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 Canadian Linguistics Society meeting, University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics Harley, H. 2008. “On the causative construction,” In. S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press. Peterson, David. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press Shibatani, Masayoshi and Prashant Pardeshi. 2001. “The causative continuum.” In M. Shibatani, ed., 1 Kinyarwanda data are provided in standard Kinyarwanda orthography, with superimposed morphological segmentation. GS
Page 5 and 6:
Remarks on the nasal classes in Mun
Page 7 and 8:
En ce qui concerne le couple 9/10,
Page 9 and 10:
Pourtant, la segmentation morphéma
Page 11:
Nasal Noun Class Prefixes in Bantu:
Page 16 and 17:
Toward an understanding of TAM in M
Page 18: Persistence and Remoteness in the B
Page 22 and 23: WS3 Pakendorf, B., K. Bostoen and C
Page 24 and 25: New Bayesian Bantu phylogeny Rebecc
Page 26 and 27: Remarques sur l’introduction du
Page 28 and 29: The origin and genetic affiliation
Page 30: Tracking the Bantu migrations in ti
Page 34 and 35: WS4 Lexical and grammatical tone in
Page 39 and 40: Martine Adda-Decker 1 , Martial Emb
Page 41 and 42: Prosodic Phrasing in Copperbelt Bem
Page 43 and 44: of Bakola. Unpublished Ms. Nurse, D
Page 45 and 46: Lehrer, A. 1985. The Influence of S
Page 47 and 48: Negation and cartography in Tiriki
Page 49 and 50: Khumalo, J.S.M. (1981) Zulu tonolog
Page 51 and 52: Nasal prefix evolution in Kikongo b
Page 53 and 54: Lost, retained or reintroduced:nasa
Page 55 and 56: Reciprocal/antipassive polysemy in
Page 57 and 58: Les consonnes implosives dans les l
Page 59 and 60: On embedded questions in Tumbuka La
Page 61 and 62: Abstract of proposed paper for Bant
Page 63 and 64: Automatic detection of copulatives
Page 65 and 66: Nominal licensing and nominal morph
Page 67: Bàsàa object left-dislocation, to
Page 71 and 72: The Mental Representation of Setswa
Page 73 and 74: Tone in Two Elomwe Dialects in Zamb
Page 75 and 76: Ntihirageza, Jeanine. 1993. Kirundi
Page 77 and 78: Domain‐sensitivity in High Tone S
Page 79 and 80: Tonal Processes in the Setswana Ver
Page 81 and 82: Tons lexicaux et tons intonatifs en
Page 83 and 84: LA TRANSITIVITÉ EN ATSI, UN DIALEC
Page 85 and 86: The impact of sociolinguistic facto
Page 87 and 88: Swahili coordinated infinitives Kri
Page 89 and 90: Functions of Rhetorical Questions i
Page 91 and 92: Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1995. Spiranti
Page 93 and 94: Titre : BantU, bantI, bantA : les v
Page 95 and 96: Upstep in Mbugwe (F34) Vera Wilhelm
Page 97 and 98: Asymmetries and Locality in Zulu ri
Page 100 and 101: PS Anatomie et physiologie humaine
Page 102 and 103: High tone spreading in four Sotho-T
Page 104 and 105: Modifications des courbes tonales e
Page 106 and 107: Informational Prominence in Kol Bon
Page 108 and 109: Bantu grammatical description from
Page 110 and 111: Typologie de la réduplication dans
Page 112 and 113: L’applicatif en kikongo véhicula
Page 114 and 115: Noun Phrase Structure in Shimwela J
Page 116 and 117: Dialectal Variations in Limbum. Lim
Page 118 and 119:
Labial /f/ can be glotalized in Nor
Page 123:
A typology of Bantu subject inversi
show all

here - 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?